Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LORETO DARIA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 197250 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The lack of pre-operation report had no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust operation. In the first place, a pre-operation report is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation.[52] In the second place, the facts of the case show that the buy-bust operation was not part of the original plan -- to serve the search warrant on accused-appellant -- but was resorted to address the contingencies of the circumstances. The urgency of the situation reasonably excused the preparation of a pre-operation report. More importantly, a pre-operation report is ordinarily submitted by the local PNP or the NBI to comply with Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 which requires "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters." Here, to require a pre-operation report for purposes of the buy-bust would constitute unnecessary bureaucratic red tape as there was already coordination by the NBI and the PNP Dumaguete City with the PDEA in the planning of the service of the warrant and in the decision to resort to a buy-bust operation.
	GR No. 190342 2012-03-21	PEOPLE v. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA SERENO, J.
The credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge. Unlike appellate magistrates, it is the judge who can weigh such testimonies in light of the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying, and who is in a unique position to discern between truth and falsehood. Thus, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses. This is especially true when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. For them the said findings are considered generally conclusive and binding upon this Court, [33] unless it be manifestly shown that the trial court had overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts and circumstances of significance.[34] Thus, we affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of the accused.
	GR No. 193234 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO SERENO, J.
In the case at bar, the original Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet was not presented in court and the records contain only a photocopy thereof, provisionally marked Exhibit "D." Caution must be made that the failure of the prosecution to present the Pre-Operation Report, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.[27] Even if the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet was properly presented in evidence, however, it is suspect as it was apparently accomplished and sent to PDEA hours before the informant arrived to give the police any information about the alleged illegal drug activity of Martin. SPO1 Mora variably testified that the confidential informant came to their office at 5 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. of 6 November 2006. Meanwhile, from the three faint stamps marked on the face of the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet, it was received by PDEA-MMRO either at 1:30 p.m., 1:40 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. of 6 November 2006.
	GR No. 185717 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellant's denial and frame-up theory. The Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.[27] This Court has been issuing cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[28]
	GR No. 185011 2009-12-23	PEOPLE v. SPO3 SANGKI ARA Y MIRASOL VELASCO JR., J.
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[34]
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
Finally, the accused-appellants contend that the prosecution evidence failed to show compliance with the requirements of law for handling evidence.But, as has been held in a recent case,[23] failure to comply strictly with those requirements will not render the seizure of the prohibited drugs invalid for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.Besides, the accused-appellants did not raise it before the trial court, hence, they cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.[24]